Tag Archive | "Bridgehampton CAC"

Planners Take a First Look at Bridgehampton CVS Proposal

Tags: , , ,


2014-08-19 10.49.01

A plan to build a CVS pharmacy at this site in Bridgehampton, now before the Southampton Town Planning Board, has drawn opposition from residents because of traffic concerns. Photo by Stephen J. Kotz.

By Stephen J. Kotz

The Southampton Town Planning Board last Thursday, August 14, took its first look at a proposed plan to build a CVS pharmacy on a vacant parcel on Montauk Highway and the Sag Harbor-Bridgehampton Turnpike.

The applicant, BNB Ventures IV and CVS Caremark, is seeking a special exception permit to allow it to use an already approved two-story, 9,030-square-foot building for a pharmacy. A special exception permit is required because the nearly quarter-acre corner lot is in a Village Business zone, where individual retail uses are limited to 5,000 square feet.

Since it was revealed late year that CVS was considering building a store at the site—at the busiest intersection in Bridgehampton—residents have rallied against the plan, arguing that a store there would create a traffic and parking nightmare.

At last week’s meeting, the planning board simply started the process by which it will be determined whether it or the Suffolk County Department of Health Services will be the “lead agency” during the processing of the application under the State Environmental Quality Review Act.

According to Kyle Collins, Southampton Town’s planning and development administrator, the county health department has until September 14, to weigh in on the application, although it could respond sooner. Typically, the county cedes that authority to the town government.

Under SEQRA, applications are considered Type I, which presumes an environmental impact statement must be completed; Type II, for which an EIS cannot be required; and “unlisted,” which means the planning board will have the final say in determining whether an EIS should be required.

Mr. Collins, responding to questions by email, said the earliest a public hearing could be held on the application is October 10. However, if the board were to require an environmental impact statement, that time could be extended for several months.

Members of the Bridgehampton Citizens Advisory Committee and other residents have been up in arms over the thought of a CVS being built at the corner since last winter.

A spin-off organization, Save Bridgehampton Main Street, was created largely to oppose the plan. It has hired an attorney commissioned a traffic study of the kind of impact a CVS would have.

In May, Bridgehampton residents converged on a town board meeting to demand that the board intervene to prevent the project from moving forward, but Supervisor Anna Throne-Holst told the crowd that the town board had no power to interfere with the planning board’s process.

Since that time, Bridgehampton residents have called on the town to negotiate with the property’s owner, BNB Ventures IV, to buy the parcel as a possible corner park.

And earlier this summer, residents holding signs and shouting slogans, gathered at the site for a pair of protests.

Lighted Crosswalk Proposed in Bridgehampton

Tags: , , ,


DSC_0886

The existing crosswalk in front of the Hampton Library. Photo by Stephen J. Kotz.

Southampton Town is looking to install warning lights at what many say is a dangerous crosswalk on Bridgehampton’s Main Street.

Christine Fetten, the town’s director of municipal works, and Tom Neely, its public transportation and safety director, sought out community opinions at Monday’s Bridgehampton Citizens Advisory Committee meting regarding the installation of the lights in front of the Hampton Library.

Library Director Kelly Harris approached Senator Kenneth P. LaValle for a grant for a lighted crosswalk system, they said, which the senator has secured.

The town had initially looked at in-ground lights, similar to those used on East Hampton Village’s Main Street, but it now has its eye set on Rapid Flashing Beacons. These solar-powered lights that flash to warn oncoming drivers when sensors detect a pedestrian, or when they are activated by pushing a button from the sidewalk.

There are some troubling visibility issues at the existing crosswalk, officials said. On the south side of the street, there is a very large linden tree that blocks visibility for eastbound motorists. Also, Ms. Fetten noted that the crossing is right next to the exit of a municipal parking lot.

According to Ms. Fetten, Bartlett Tree Experts examined the tree and determined that it was “not in very good condition.” CAC members unanimously agreed that they would be in favor of the removal of the tree if it were replaced with a more street-friendly tree.

They also said that they would support the installation of the rapid flashing beacons. Members of the CAC also suggested that Bridgehampton could benefit from more traffic cops during the summer who could help direct traffic.

Pharmacy Giant Files for Special Exemption Permit on Busy Bridgehampton Corner

Tags: , , ,


DSC_0144-BCAC2

This week, CVS filed for a special exemption permit for a 9,500 square-foot store at a busy intersection on Montauk Highway in Bridgehampton. Photo by Stephen J. Kotz.

By Mara Certic

After months of grumbling, hand-wringing and even a pair of protest marches, Bridgehampton residents’ fears that CVS Pharmacy would try to shoehorn a store into the busiest corner in the hamlet took a step closer to being realized this week.

According to Kyle Collins, Southampton Town’s planning and development administrator, Bridgehampton BNB IV Ventures, the company that owns the property at the northwest corner of Montauk Highway and the Bridgehampton-Sag Harbor Turnpike, has applied for a special exception permit from the Southampton Town Planning Board to open a 9,500-square-foot store at the site.

“At 3:30 this afternoon I got an e-mail from Kyle Collins telling me that BNB IV Ventures has applied for the special exception before the planning board,” Nancy Walter Yvertes solemnly announced to members of the Bridgehampton Citizens Advisory Committee on Monday, July 28. Mr. Collins is the town’s planning and development administrator.

For months, the CAC, and a spin off group, Save Bridgehampton Main Street, has been fighting the proposed CVS through letter-writing campaigns, distributing petitions and even protesting.

Site plan approval has already been granted for a two-story building with 9,500 square feet of space at the site, but in the Village Business zoning district, businesses are limited to 5,000 square feet. Larger businesses are allowed only if a special exception permit is granted.

Members of the CAC and Save Bridgehampton Main Street have been writing letters to CVS executives for months but have not received any satisfactory response, they said.

“Now that the planning board has the file, we have the right to correspond with Dennis Finnerty and all of the people on the planning board,” Ms. Walter Yvertes told the other members of the CAC.  Mr. Finnerty is the board’s chairman.

Ms. Walter Yvertes also announced that Steven Schneider, an engineer conducting a traffic study for Save Bridgehampton Main Street, had agreed to analyze the turning movements at both driveways to the site. There is a driveway on Montauk Highway and one at the end of Lumber Lane at the turnpike. The analysis would add $1,800 to the cost of the traffic study, she said.

“Originally, I did not think it was necessary, but rethinking it, it very well could be. It may lead us, for example, to recommending restrictions on vehicles entering and exiting the driveways because of the traffic flow and the geometrics of the closeness of those driveways to the major intersection,” Mr. Schneider wrote in an e-mail to Ms. Walter Yvertes on Friday, July 25.

Ms. Walter Yvertes commented that it should really be the town conducting the study and that town officials should be “encouraged to do their jobs.”

CAC member Julie Burmeister also announced that a videographer had been chosen to film the busy intersection as part of the study. She explained that for some reason, the traffic is at its heaviest at that spot at around 10:30 a.m., and so they will be filming the flow of cars, trucks and bicycles at that hectic time of day in an effort to prove that the already dangerous corner will likely become unbearable if the CVS plan is approved.

Many of the members of the CAC also sit on Save Bridgehampton Main Street, which has hired attorney Vince Messina to fight the CVS application. The Islip-based lawyer was recommended to the organization by Southampton Town Justice Deborah Kooperstein, a resident of Bridgehampton.

When members asked why a local lawyer had not been chosen, CAC-member Peter Wilson responded, “I think she picked him because she’s had experience with him and feels that he’s a top performing litigator and he also has a pretty formidable reputation in Suffolk County.”

Ms. Water Yvertes added that when she told Jeff Murphree, the town’s former planning and development administrator, who has been helping his in-laws fight the CVS application, of their choice of lawyer “his eyes started twinkling and he said ‘Oh, he’s very strong.’”

CAC members s found several parts of the special exception use standards that they believe the proposed CVS would not be able to comply with. One provision states that there must be sufficient off-street parking and truck loading spaces for the anticipated number of employees, patrons and visitors and that “the layout of the spaces and driveways is convenient and conducive to safe operation.”

Jim Olson asked the assembled members of the CAC if they thought that their efforts would prevail; they replied that it would probably come down to the other lawyer, Wayne Bruyn.

They anticipated that he would try to time the hearing for the wintertime, when fewer Bridgehampton homeowners are in town to voice their opinions.

According to an email from Mr. Collins, of the town’s Department of Land Management, the absolute earliest date that a public hearing would take place would be on November 13.

Ms. Walter Yvertes said that she thought it was unlikely that it would qualify for a special exception permit “unless Wayne Bruyn’s a magician.”

On Wednesday, Mr. Bruyn said that he was not involved with the application. He said it was not BNB IV Ventures, but CVS itself, which had filed the permit application. He said he does not represent the pharmacy company and has not prepared an application for it nor reviewed it at this time.

Mr. Messina was not available for comment by the time of this paper’s publication.

 

 

CVS Still Giving Bridgehampton CAC Agita

Tags: ,


By Stephen J. Kotz

The Bridgehampton Citizens Advisory Committee continues to shadow box with a plan—not yet filed—to build a CVS pharmacy at Bridgehampton’s busiest and most problematic intersection.

The proposal occupied the full attention of the CAC during a nearly two-hour-long meeting on Monday, at which Jefferson Murphree, the former director of land management for Southampton, presented an overview of the site that touched on its zoning and the rationale behind it as contained in the town’s comprehensive plan.

Mr. Murphree, who now holds a similar position with Riverhead Town, was at the meeting in a private capacity to represent his in-laws, who live on Lumber Lane, not far from the proposed development.

Members of the CAC and other concerned Bridgehampton residents descended on a Southampton Town Board meeting last month to demand that the board intervene to prevent the CVS from coming into Bridgehampton, but their pleas were deflected by Supervisor Anna Throne Holst who told them the Town Board had no jurisdiction over the matter and that they should take their concerns to the town planning board when, and if, it receives an application for the project.

But Mr. Murphree said the town board could be pulled into the fray, if the CAC is able to make the case that the development, and others similar to it, would cause onerous traffic and parking issues. If that were the case, he said, it could request a moratorium on commercial development in the hamlet.

Committee members agreed that that there simply isn’t enough room at the intersection for vehicles to get safely in and out of the site, pointing out that traffic is routinely backed up toward the turnpike and Lumber Lane.

Mr. Murphree urged committee members to continue to take their concerns to the town board. “You have to be on their radar,” he said, “because they are paying attention to the squeaky wheel.”

CAC members said it is just a matter of time before BNB Ventures, which owns the corner property, will officially apply for a special exception permit for the pharmacy. The company already has planning approval to build a two-story building measuring approximately  9,000 square feet, plus a complete basement with an elevator. The property would include a total of 10 parking spaces, including two for the handicapped, according to Mr. Murphree.

The committee supported the original building design for the site under the assumption that it was gong to be used for a number of small offices or stores with apartments on the second floor.

CAC co-chairwoman Nancy Walter Yvertes, who is also involved with a separate group, Save Bridgehampton Main Street, said the organization has already raised the $6,000 it needs to pay for a traffic study, which, she said, could be used to counter any study the developer submits.

“How can this be considered an independent traffic study?” asked Gay Lynch. “They’re all hired guns,” responded Ms. Walter Yvertes.

Long-time CAC member Fred Cammann suggested the committee should focus its attention on CVS, and not town government. “This is a commercial venture coming in here that is depending on the good will of the community to not go bankrupt,” he said. “Why in the name of God would you want to put a store in the middle of a community that doesn’t want you?”

“We have to be prepared to attack this,” added Dan Shedrick. “As Don King said, this is all about m-o-n-e-y.”

But Leonard Davenport, another CAC member said the group needed to keep its eye on the bigger picture. Even if it succeeds in convincing CVS that it should not come to Bridgehampton, a similar plan will rear its head sometime in the future, he said.

He urged the committee to keep the pressure on the planning board to oppose the project and concurrently encourage the town to make a good-faith effort to buy the property and develop it into a corner park.

Sagaponack and Bridgehampton Residents Criticize Proposed Changes to Bridge Lane Bridge

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


By Tessa Raebeck

Some 30 residents of Sagaponack and Bridgehampton came to the Bridgehampton Community Center last Wednesday night to express their concerns over a project they say will change the face of their home — the rehabilitation of the bridge that gives Bridge Lane its name.

Alex Gregor, highway superintendent for Southampton Town, hosted a public forum on the bridge restoration project, a multi-faceted restoration to improve safety. The project, residents say, has unnecessary changes that, in addition to altering the character of the bridge, will pose greater risk to the pedestrians who use it for crabbing, fishing and swimming.

“That bridge is part of our rapidly vanishing hometown,” said Marilee Foster, a Sagaponack farmer who serves on the village’s Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA).

Lisa Duryea Thayer, a Sagaponack Village trustee, called the project “very offensive to the character of our area.”

Built in 1923, the bridge is not new to controversy. When Suffolk County owned the bridge and attempted to demolish it and replace it with a modern steel structure in the 1980s, residents fought a five-year battle to keep it, culminating successfully in 1988.

“This whole battle,” recalled Donald Louchheim, mayor of Sagaponack Village, “was fought out for exactly the same reasons that you are giving today…now in effect, the town is reneging on the commitment that it made 25 years ago.”

Costing between $890,000 and $1 million, the project would widen the two traffic lanes, repave the roadway approaching the bridge on either side, replace the guardrails, put in drainage, replace the seawalls on either side and install leaching pools — pits that absorb liquid into the soil.

“Please believe me,” Gregor told the disgruntled crowd, “I don’t like to spend a million dollars on something unless we have to.”’

The travel lanes, currently at about 8.5 feet, need to be widened to today’s standard of 10 feet, Gregor said, which would leave no room for a sidewalk on the bridge.

“I grew up next to that bridge,” said Sagaponack resident and former mayor Bill Tillotsen. “I’ve swum off of it, I’ve jumped off of it, I’ve fished off it … the sidewalk there is inadequate but without it you’re going to create a real funnel for traffic.”

Town officials began looking into funding for this project back 2005, before Gregor was in office. In 2006, an average of about 1,200 vehicles crossed over the bridge each day, according to the town.

By the time Gregor took office in 2010, he said, the town had already bonded close to half a million dollars for the rehabilitation project.

A federal grant for $500,000 was “one of the last Congressional earmarks that [Congressman] Tim Bishop got out in 2008,” Gregor said.

By accepting the federal aid, the town is required to keep the project consistent with federal and state regulations, which mandate many of the project’s elements which residents are highly critical, such as the widened lanes and new guardrails.

Cathy Gandel, co-chair of the Bridgehampton CAC (Citizens Advisory Committee), told Gregor, “you keep talking about safety — which we all want — but what makes you think that two 10-foot lanes with that guardrail [would improve safety]? People slow down now over that bridge because it’s narrow.”

“Tell the mayor and the trustees to get the cop there and write some tickets on the bridge,” Gregor responded.

Following the forum, Gandel’s husband, Earl Gandel, recalled a time in the late 1940s when international road races were held in Bridgehampton, with racers crossing over the bridge.

“We’re getting ready to change the nature of a bridge that I think a lot of people are really attached to,” Foster said. “I just feel really kicked in the face by this project because people love this place, people love the bridge.”

“I don’t think,” replied Gregor, “a 1923 bridge makes it historic, but I’m not going to insult historians in that.”

Several residents, along with Sagaponack Village’s consulting engineer Drew Brennan, asked Gregor to consider an alternative option that would make the basic repairs to the bridge without taking the federal grants that mandate the most aesthetically altering — and controversial —components of the project.

Brennan estimated that option would cost the town up to $700,000 and those in attendance asked Gregor to commit to looking into it.

“Our boards every month,” said Louchheim, “are struggling mightily to preserve as much as possible the rural and historic and scenic character of the Town of Southampton and quite frankly, the bridge is a vital part of that.”

Gregor said he and his team would consider the residents’ input and “regroup.”

“But,” he said, “I would be wrong in telling you I’m not still leaning forward.”

Linda Franke asked whether the public forum was just hosted as a gesture.

“It’s a condition and a gesture,” Gregor replied.

Southampton Town Trustees Explores the Balance of Beach Protection & Public Access

Tags: , ,


By Tessa Raebeck

A home sold in the 1960s due to the owner’s belief in its inevitable demise at the hands of Mother Nature is still standing today — but the expansive beaches that once surrounded it have disappeared entirely.

The Southampton home, which belonged to the family of lifetime resident and Southampton Town Trustee Fred Havemeyer, now juts out to the sea on a shaky promontory. Barricades built by neighbors to protect their own homes have preserved the structure, while the beaches that once made it a desirable home have been destroyed.

In the aftermath of Superstorm Sandy last October, year round residents and local officials are questioning the legality — as well as the ethics — of sacrificing public beaches in order to preserve private properties. At the Bridgehampton Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) meeting Monday night, Havemeyer addressed attendants on the duty of the Southampton Town Trustees to protect the community beaches. He stressed the importance of beach preservation for both recreational and economic reasons, as well as the ongoing threat to public beaches posed by bulkheads or man-made barricades.

“It’s been going on for centuries, it’s not a new thing,” Havemeyer said of coastal erosion.

The trustees, who are responsible for safeguarding the marine community and protecting public access rights, maintain that construction of such bulkheads severely hastens the erosion process. Oceanfront homes, belonging predominantly to wealthy, seasonal residents, are temporarily preserved while local beaches are obliterated.

Havemeyer put it simply, “You put in bulkheads, you lose beaches.”

“I think it is important to remember that there is a population on the East End that lives and votes here year round,” CAC member and former chairman Fred Cammann wrote in a letter to the committee. “We respect the power of storms and we know not to challenge the forces of nature with artificial Band-Aids because our experience has shown this to be folly. Multiple generations know that one may live with, but never try to control, our ever changing environment.”

Following the coastal destruction from Superstorm Sandy, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) issued a permit allowing homeowners to restore sections of existing bulkheads and hard structures on the beach which were damaged to a height no greater than 18 inches above the original structure.

The trustees, along with members of the CAC, claim that many homeowners violated the spirit of the permit by rebuilding the structures altogether rather than restoring the damaged areas as authorized. Allegedly, many homeowners used unstable wooden fences in the dunes, which lie above the buried bulkheads, as a benchmark for reconstruction rather than the bulkheads themselves.

The resulting bulkheads are therefore higher and more extensive than the DEC regulations permit. One example in Bridgehampton, according to CAC vice chair Jeffrey Mansfield, was a wooden bulkhead that extended one foot above the sand being removed and replaced by a steel bulkhead protruding five feet above sand level.

Many states with coastal communities, including Washington, Texas and the Carolinas, have enacted laws to limit or prohibit the construction of bulkheads due to perceived negative environmental effects. Havemeyer, who has been monitoring the bays and beaches of Southampton daily for the past 11 years, claims that in order to combat erosion resulting from bulkheads, massive beach replenishment projects are necessary.

He warned the CAC, “We are harnessing everybody into a situation that once this is put in, we will have to replenish [the beaches] forever.”

The trustee maintains that these projects could be required as often as biannually, at an immense and ever increasing cost to taxpayers.

Opponents of individual barricades reference an even more drastic cost to local residents; the loss of public beaches which would command the loss of the central component of the East End’s vibrant tourism industry and thus severely damage the area’s economic vitality.

“We’re really defining a moment where we could lose the most important aspect that we have, which is the Atlantic beaches,” said Havemeyer.

The Southampton Town Trustees, with the support of the Bridgehampton CAC, believe these homeowners will inevitably discover that, unlike oceanfront homes and steel barricades, Mother Nature cannot be bought. They are hopeful that legal regulations will aid in their campaign to preserve public beaches, but worry that many oceanfront homeowners have such substantial wealth that they consider themselves to be above the law.

“During the next 20, 30 years while we’re waiting for Mother Nature to show the hedge funds who’s boss, we — the year round residents — will be suffering,” Mansfield said in Monday’s meeting.

Citing the area around an existing bulkhead from the early 1980s, he said, “No matter if you’re a beachcomber, a dog walker, a fisherman, or a surfer, you can’t get to the beach.”

Trustees Seek Support to Continue Battle for Access Rights

Tags: , , , ,


In the wake of a court decision last month which Southampton Town Trustees believe endangers their ability to regulate beaches, and therefore protect access, on Monday night they sought the support of the Bridgehampton Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC).

With members of the East Hampton-based not-for-profit Citizens for Access Rights (CfAR) in attendance, the trustees implored the CAC to put political pressure on town and state officials to ensure over three centuries of legal precedence is not eroded and shorelines are protected from being bulkheaded into oblivion.

CAC co-chairman Stephen Steinberg made it clear from the outset the trustees had come to the committee for support.

“An erosion of this kind of power with a lack of support from the town board will hurt us in terms of trying to protect the natural beauty we have,” said Steinberg. “This is a town built on its beaches. Without our beaches, we might as well be Arizona.”

In the May 9 decision, State Supreme Court Justice Peter H. Mayer ruled that the town trustee’s power does not give them control over beach landward of the high tide mark. The decision was a judgment in favor of Quogue Village and two homeowners who buried fabric tubes filled with sand under dunes to prevent erosion of the beach.

Justice Mayer plainly states in the decision that while the trustees have the right to retain title to underwater lands and can control what structures are built on those lands, it does not have control of the shores or beaches on the South Fork.

As Southampton Town Trustees President Eric Schultz explained on Monday night, the trustees do hold title over the town’s underwater lands, but also have had an easement over the shorelines and beaches of Southampton’s oceans and bays. The reason that jurisdiction — which has been upheld in three separate court cases — is important, said Schultz, is because it protects residents access to the beaches and prevents waterfront property owners from erecting structures on the beach to essentially privatize them.

The concern with shoreline hardening structures, said Schultz, including bulkheads, the sand filled tubes used in Quogue known as Geotubes or rock revetments, is the trustees believe when they are erected on a beach other sections of the beachfront erode at a faster pace, which could ultimately harm public access.

“It’s drawing a line in the sand,” said Schultz. “It’s not allowing the beach to move northward. Once you establish a hard, fast line that beach will diminish.”

However, the trustees’ hard line stance against shoreline hardening has drawn several lawsuits in the last decade, mainly from property owners stating they are simply trying to protect their land from literally being eroded away.

Schultz said the trustees have the funding to appeal the Mayer decision, which they intend to do, but that the trustees want to mobilize the community.

“Our trouble right now is we need the community to start getting behind the trustees and asking the state assembly, the town board what we are doing to protect the trustees,” said Schultz.

He said that community support could come in the way of residents calling on state lawmakers to pass legislation that supports the trustee’s regulatory rights over the beaches or to call on town officials to support the trustees more, financially and otherwise.

“I am very concerned because I was told by a town official that this issue wasn’t about access, it was about erosion and I couldn’t disagree more,” said CAC member Jeff Mansfield.

Noting that if someone builds a home on the crest of a dune they should expect erosion will likely become an issue, Schultz said he would like to see the State of New York adopt laws that places the burden on those homeowners rather than expect the public to forgo their right to the beach.

“We are looking for your support politically,” said trustee Fred Havemeyer. “We need you to lobby, for you to realize these five guys have their fingers in the dike. If we take them out we are gone – that means you. We can survive financially, but what we need is a support base within the town.”

CfAR vice president David Lys said his group supports the trustees of both East Hampton and Southampton and that it is critical, particularly in election years, to make this a very public discussion.

“We recognize if there is a loss of rights in East Hampton or Southampton it has a regional affect,” said Lys.

Bridgehampton CAC Supports Ban on Plastic Bags

Tags: , , , , ,


Just over a month after the Southampton Town Board tabled a resolution to institute a ban on plastic bags, a majority of members of the Bridgehampton Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) voted this week to send a letter to the board showing their support the legislation and urging lawmakers to revive plans to move forward with the law.

On Monday night, Bridgehampton CAC member Jeff Mansfield raised the issue, questioning why the town would ever table a measure that on its face appeared to make so much sense.

“I like to consider myself an environmentalist, and just reading about this, it just makes sense,” said Mansfield, noting the East End’s greatest economic driver is its pristine waterways and beachfront, and untouched vistas of open space and farmland.

“I think we should be talking about this because it does not seem like they are talking about this in town hall right now,” said Mansfield.

Mansfield added that he feels the input and support of Bridgehampton residents was critical, as the hamlet is home to King Kullen, one of the larger grocery stores in the unincorporated neighborhoods in Southampton. Only those areas, not the villages in Southampton, would be subject to the legislation.

The town’s sustainability committee, led by Tip Brolin, first floated the proposal in the town last June.

The ban proposed to prohibit single-use plastic bags no less than two mils thick and less than 28-inches by 36-inches in size at store check-out counters. Smaller bags, like the ones found in the produce aisle of most grocery stores, or at the deli and fish counters, would not be subject to the ban.

The original proposal also included a provision that would allow stores to carry paper bags, in addition to re-useable bags, for customers provided they were made out of 40-percent recyclable materials. However, the provision was scaled back by December to allow paper bags that are made of 30-percent recyclable materials, as is commonly found at most grocery stores.

Brolin presented research to the town board that showed similar legislation in Westport, Conn. was successful, with 53-percent of shoppers polled using re-usable bags once the ban was in effect, compared to the neighboring community of Norwalk and Walton, which showed just 10-percent of shoppers used re-usable bags at the grocery store.

Brolin also pointed out that the use of plastic bags results in environmental damage, littering waterways and open spaces, impacting animal life, while also piling up in landfills.

Southampton Town Supervisor Anna Throne-Holst planned to roll out a six-month campaign prior to the ban taking effect to educate the public on when the ban would take place and what options were available outside of plastic bags.

If adopted, Southampton Town would have become the third municipality on the South Fork to ban plastic bags. Bans have been enacted in both East Hampton and Southampton Villages. While the issue has been raised by members of the public at the Sag Harbor Village Board of Trustees, no legislation has been introduced that would ban plastic bags in Sag Harbor.

However, Supervisor Throne-Holst was never able to push the legislation through after a Republican majority on the town board voted to not even host a public hearing on the law in December.

Councilmen Chris Nuzzi and Jim Malone were supported by now former councilwoman Nancy Grabowski — a Bridgehampton resident — in their desire to halt the public hearing. Instead, they were in favor of working with the business community to mount a public education campaign to promote the benefits of using re-usable bags.

Supervisor Throne-Holst and councilwoman Bridget Fleming, who pointed to statistics that showed these kinds of campaigns were ineffective, rebuked the majority, but they remained overruled.

On Wednesday morning, Jennifer Garvey, a spokeswoman for Supervisor Throne-Holst, said the supervisor was still committed to the idea of a plastic bag ban.

“When we met with the industry folks, everyone was in agreement that we should be using less plastic,” said Garvey. “The question is how we get there. Anna does not believe the education campaign will work, although we are willing to do it.”

Garvey added that the Supervisor came to this position based on Brolin and the Green committee’s extensive research into other municipalities that have and have not instituted similar bans.

Whether or not the issue ever comes to a head, she added, largely rests in the hands of new town councilwoman Christine Scalera, a Republican who has vowed to be a liaison to the committee that will lead the development of the educational campaign.

Scalera was not immediately available for comment.

However, for members of the Bridgehampton CAC that the issue appeared to be split along party lines was unacceptable. Mansfield questioned the real financial impact it would have on retailers. He argued most customers on the East End would be more than happy to pay a few extra cents to cover the cost of using a paper bag at a grocery store, or even buy re-usable bags, if it meant keeping the environment pristine.

“I think that would be money most of us in the community would spend to have this amount of pollution reduced,” said Mansfield.

“If I were in government, I would just do it,” agreed CAC secretary Richard Bruce. “It seems to me there are more people than grocery store owners so I think we should be able to win the day.”

CAC member Weezie Quimby said that member Ian MacPherson, unable to attend the meeting, was opposed to ban, citing the convenience, particularly for the elderly, in having plastic bags to carry groceries in.

CAC member Michael Kabot added the true cost for retailers to switch from plastic to paper and re-usable bags has not been fully explored. He did not believe it was the business of government to tell him what kind of bag he can use at the grocery store.

CAC member Peter Wilson said that while he was in favor of the idea, it may be industry leaders are controlling the discussion and that retailers are worried about the effect the ban would have on summer colony patrons, not the year-round community.

“There must be some political influences at play,” said CAC co-chair Stephen Steinberg. “I can assure you if Bridgehampton was a village we would have passed it right away.”


CAC Suggests Outreach in Ongoing Dispute Over Sand Pit in Noyac

Tags: , , , , , , ,


Sand Pit

Whether or not a sandpit on Middle Line Highway in Noyac on the border of Bridgehampton is operating legally is an issue still being debated in court and in the Town of Southampton. The property includes several buildings constructed without building permits as well as cement and wood grinding, mulching and compost services neighbors say were never approved uses.

On Monday, the Bridgehampton Citizens Advisory Committee began as a discussion about an impending zoning board of appeals meeting regarding the property, owned by the Sand-Land Corporation, and how the committee could weigh in on the plant. But it turned into a debate over how best to wage the battle, and whether or not compromise was the most realistic solution moving forward.

Bridgehampton CAC member Jenice Delano, who was backed up by Noyac Citizens Advisory Committee co-chair Sherry Kiselyak, championed the discussion — both women toting reams of paperwork on Sand Land’s history.

“The entire site is in Noyac,” explained Kiselyak of the 50-acre property. “But we have been getting a lot of calls from Bridgehampton residents.”

According to research compiled during a now two-year legal battle waged by a small group of neighbors protesting the non-sand mining related portions of the operation, the first record of the business dates to 1961.

In court documents, Sand Land attorney David Eagan has argued that the business on the property existed prior to the town code’s adoption in 1957, making it pre-existing, non-conforming and therefore legal.

Since 2010, the corporation has been trying to obtain a certificate of occupancy for the property from the town that confirms that status.

“There is no evidence that it existed prior to the application for a variance for a portable screening plant in 1961,” said Kiselyak.

In 1961, the building inspector denied a request by Bridgehampton Sand and Gravel “for the use of the land to remove from there gravel and some sand by means of a portable screening plant,” according to the variance decision.

The zoning board of appeals did grant a variance to allow the plant, but Delano noted it was under the restriction that the business could do only what it proposed — a sand and gravel mining operation.

The board noted it would not be able to approve a variance for any application that resulted in a use that would “be noxious or offensive by reason of the emission of odor, dust, fumes, smoke, gas, vibration or noise.”

The decision also states that once the firm removed gravel, it “should not leave a large hole.” Viewing the property from an aerial perspective, Delano noted in an interview on Friday, it is clear that aspect of the variance has not been kept.

Other records dug up in the case include a 1995 correspondence between Wayne Bruen, then Southampton Town deputy town attorney, and the New York Department of Environmental Conservation regarding the Bridgehampton Material & Heavy Equipment Company’s request to allow composting on the property, an aspect of the business that continues today.

In that letter, Bruen writes that the “requested composting operation is considered to be a prohibited use” on the property, which is over an aquifer and is zoned residential. The letter noted that the landowners would need to file for a change of zone with the town board or seek a variance to allow composting on the site.

According to Delano, who has been in touch with the DEC regarding the application, it was never approved.

But according to a subsection of DEC law, some solid waste management and mining facilities do not need DEC permits, although businesses must register with the agency and file annual reports, which Sand Land has done.

Delano argues the company must still gain town permits to operate this kind of plant in a residential neighborhood. She added that the town — which uses the business’s composting facilities — has yet to respond to numerous inquires she made regarding the property.

In the meantime, three Southampton Town residents — Joseph Phair, Margot Gilman and Robert Flood — have filed suit to enjoin Sand Land from continuing to operate any uses on the site that are not legal under the town code.

According to their attorney, Zachary Murdock, Sand Land must prove the businesses operating on the site have been in use since before the town code was written in 1957.

In court documents, the company affirms it has been in business since before zoning was enacted in Southampton, with sworn affidavits filed by two employees, one now deceased, stating they worked on the property, composting on the site, prior to 1957.

However, Murdock has filed photographs of the property from 1963 and 1966 that show an active sand mine, but no other evidence of composting or other business uses.

While that case is pending, on August 18 the town’s zoning board of appeals will hear a variance application by Sand Land to legalize six buildings the town cited them for in 2006 for erecting without a building permit.

In a March 2009 letter to the zoning board, the Noyac CAC came out against the request, noting there is no certificate of occupancy for the property on file with the building department, although Sand Land has recently filed for a pre-existing certificate of occupancy.

The CAC further asks that the uses on the property be spelled out for the public, including uses in violation of the original zoning board decision, and it questions the amount of clearing on the site. They also ask the board look at truck traffic and its impact to the neighborhood.

“We question why they are before this board requesting variances at all, when all these structures can be built in a multitude of conforming locations throughout the site (provided the pre-existing can be proved),” the letter states.

Delano appeared to be trying to get the Bridgehampton CAC to file a similar letter, but while chairman Fred Cammann said he would coordinate efforts with the Noyac CAC, no formal action was taken.

“Is this a civics lesson that even though we have laws and they are not following the rules, the way forward is to ask them not to make too much noise,” asked a member of the audience.

“I think a lot of people have no idea how big it is,” said Donna D’Amiano. “At times the smell would literally knock you over.”

According to notes filed by Cammann after the meeting, the overall sense of the CAC is that the business may be illegal, but the most “realistic approach to minimizing the disturbance to the neighbors would be to enter discussions quietly with the owners of the business” on how it should be operated to reduce aggravation to neighbors.

“It was also the sense of the CAC that even if the necessary variances and permits are granted, the continuous operation of the business as it is presently conducted is unacceptable,” added Cammann.

Bridgehampton CAC Praises Beverage Store Project, Criticizes Intersection

Tags: ,


On Monday, the Bridgehampton Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) applauded proposed plans for retail and office or apartment spaces at the intersection of Lumber Lane, Montauk Highway and the Bridgehampton/Sag Harbor Turnpike — site of the dilapidated Bridgehampton Beverage Store.

In the same breath, however, many members criticized what they see as a poorly planned existing intersection resulting in “disastrous” and “complicated” traffic conditions in the center of Bridgehampton, and called for action from Southampton Town to remedy the situation.

At the request of the Southampton Town Planning Board, which has been reviewing BNB Ventures proposal to demolish the beverage store and a second ramshackle residence on adjacent property and construct the new approximately 8,700 square foot, two-story Greek revival inspired building, project planner Richard Warren of Inter-Science Research Associates presented the development to the CAC. Members were largely happy with the evolution of the project over the last several years.

In the project’s initial design, Warren explained, the building was larger — 10,000 square feet — clad in brick on one side and wood shingles on the other, wrapping the corner of Lumber Lane and Montauk Highway snuggly. After receiving a positive SEQR (State Environmental Quality Review) Declaration from the town planning board, Warren said project sponsors chose to go back to the drawing board, hiring an architectural historian to aid in the project’s design.

The result is a smaller building that no longer wraps the corner and is now wholly clad in painted white wood, a similar style to neighboring Bulls Head Inn and Nathaniel Rogers House. Designed by Frank Greenwald, an East Hampton architect, Warren noted the plan also pushes the building back on the property, in excess of 25-feet from the road, where only 10 is required.

The development of the proposed two-story building, which would house three retail spaces on the ground floor and either three offices or two apartments on the second floor, would also do away with the curb cut that now offers access to the beverage store, redirecting traffic through the parking lot next to Starbucks and the offices of Prudential Douglas Elliman Real Estate, which BNB Ventures also owns.

Parking will also be reconfigured said Warren, resulting in 96 spaces between BNB’s proposed development, and the existing parking lot accommodating Starbucks and the real estate office. Seven spaces will be new, said to Warren, who added he is submitting a parking study that shows the number exceeds what is needed in the area.

“We felt it was important to try and see if we could come up with something that has an architecture that works for the area,” said Warren.

The town’s Landmarks and Historic Districts Board has already found the project acceptable, said Warren, although he added “the devil is in the details” and project sponsors want to ensure they don’t end up with a “Disneyland-like” structure.

Peter Wilson, an architect and member of the CAC, called the Lumber Lane, Main Street and Bridgehampton/Sag Harbor Turnpike intersection “complicated” and said though the already difficult traffic issues at the intersection may not be BNB Ventures responsibility, it should be addressed by town planners.

“That corner right now is totally disastrous,” he said, to the agreement of several CAC members including Christine Smith. Smith suggested that a cut in the triangular piece of land at the right of way would prevent drivers leaving the lot from turning left onto the Bridgehampton/Sag Harbor Turnpike by crossing Lumber Lane, forcing them instead to either turn left onto Lumber Lane only or right towards the highway.

“I am very supportive of this project,” continued Wilson. “It’s the kind of commercial development I personally would like to encourage because it is taking place in the village, not like all this other stuff we are getting bombarded with, with strip mall development.”
Wilson’s endorsement will be adopted as the CAC’s official position on that site, however, the CAC will also be sending a second motion to the town board and planning board calling for Southampton officials to address the “troubling” intersection.

The CAC will also send a resolution asking the town to address safety at Ocean Road Beach by creating facilities that will allow the town to hire lifeguards for the beach.

“It’s the most attractive and most dangerous bathing opportunity we have in our community,” said CAC chairman Fred Cammann who added the issue has been broached before, with the town stating that in order to hire lifeguards they must develop sanitary facilities. A sliver of land near the beach, whose ownership is now being investigated by the town, may allow for that project.

The CAC agreed to ask the town to address safety through the introduction of lifeguards at the beach and present them with any plans in the future.